Do liberals understand what "stand your ground" means?
Treyvon martin was not standing his ground. being followed is not enough reason under stand your ground to turn and attack. If it was I could turn and attack anyone who happens to be behind me and claim I felt threatened.
So liberals, please explain, with evidence, why you feel the actions of martin would be covered under Fl. Stand your ground laws?
Update:For the uneducated: Stalking does not apply in this case. A citizen can follow someone they think is suspicious until police arrive even if 911 tells you they don't need that. It does not constitute stalking.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
It's obvious that you don't have a f--king clue what you are talking about. The law would cover Martin in that situation. You might want to actually read the law before you try and discuss it.
Speaking of the uneducated, nobody is claiming the actions of Treyvon Martin would be covered under stand your ground. Treyvon Martin is not on trial. He is dead.
George Zimmerman is claiming that his actions are legal under Florida's stand your ground statute.
When you get such basic facts wrong, it makes it hard to take you seriously. But you're probably used to that. You come online because here you can imagine that you're an expert, even when you can't remember which guy is on trial and which guy is dead.
Goodbye.
A “stand your ground” law states that a person may use deadly force in self- defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat .
The problem with the "stand your ground," the burden of proof to use deadly force simply requires that a person imagines he or is in danger.
1. What Is Stalking?
Stalking refers to harassing or threatening behavior that is engaged in repeatedly. Such harassment can be either physical stalking or cyberstalking.
Physical stalking is following someone, appearing at a person’s home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing one’s property.
Cyberstalking involves using the Internet or other electronic means to harass.
Stalking someone, asking them what they are doing, were both out of Zimmerman jurisdiction, since he is not a police officer. Walking down the street is everyone's right in this country.
Well for the one millionth time on here, Ive never said either was guilty or not guilty of anything. Again I was nit there. But I do think this trial should be over as soon as the defense parades out all the eyewitnesses from yahoo that saw the entire thing. Because of course no one would be going by what they heard only on the biased media now would they? I mean everyone screams on here the media is BIASED the media LIES. Yet they all quote the media for this case. Well anyway its going to be kind of neat seeing all the yahoo eyewitnesses testify on court tv. Edit oh yes i just learned stand your ground means: try to take away their food stamps and welfare and watch what happens!!!!! Lol another fcking putz
Again MJ
Put yourself in TM's sneakers
You're walking home from 7-11 on dark and rainy night
Except for a bag of Skittles and an iced tea you're unarmed
Some guy starts following you
Because this guy doesn't have an official vehicle , nor a badge , nor a glow in the dark Wannabe Cop on his jacket , nor does he yell out to you Wannabe Cop Freeze Punk !!! you have no idea who TF this guy is and what his intentions are and since you don't you have no choice But to believe that the guy wishes you harm
You're more than a little stressed out by what's going down ...and then the guy disappears
As a reasonable person who doesn't want to win the Darwin Award you have to assume that he's going back to his car to get a gun to kill you with
So what do you do ?
You attack him while the odds of survival are still somewhat in your favor because if you allow him to get his gun you're dead
I think "blue" has got the best answer to this one, from what I understand of the law.
According to Wikipedia, anyway,
In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.
The big problem is defining what constitutes a "reasonable belief" in an unlawful threat.
If you draw your gun and kill someone else -- like Trayvon, say -- because you feel that you're being threatened, who's to say whether your fear is "reasonable"?
It seems you are the one having the issue understanding what "stand your ground" means.
You are twisting something said on another question which made no mention of Martin. Your answer to that question btw was completely wrong about stand your ground laws. Stand your ground DOES NOT just apply to once you are attacked. Stand your ground applies to the right to self defense without duty of retreat where there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. it would apply to Martin because most people would agree being followed in a car (as recorded by the 911 operator) , then on foot (as stated by Zimmerman), then confronted by the same person (as stated by Zimmerman) constitutes a reasonable threat.
Florida Statue:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
As you see violence does not have to be committed for you to defend yourself just a reasonable belief the person means to commit violence or another crime on you. (Same statue that shows Zimmerman's shooting Martin does not equal stand your ground because of the deadly force qualifiers). But, Trayvon Martin is not the one who is using or claiming the stand your ground defense. No one claimed Trayvon Martin was standing his ground your warped mind twisted something someone said earlier. Trayvon Martin is not the accused or on trial he is the victim here and he does not need a defense.
ADD: MaryJane again you talk to people and attempt to insult them, but do not know what you are talking about and are twisting things. No one is talking about the following in the car, although that would add to fear, it is his getting out on foot and confronting Martin.
If Trayvon had a gun, he would have been standing his ground.
If he shot Zimmerman, called the cops and said "I ran, he chased me, I drew my gun and I shot him when he drew his" you'd be posting it as a success story of concealed carry.
The only person who can testify to that version of what happened is a liar!
Oh and if he gets on the stand I am sure the prosecutor will ask him about lying to the court about assets!
Bye-Bye creditability!
a guy followed me once.
good thing i didn't attack him like Trayvon did because he was just giving me back a wallet that i left in the store.
had i done what Trayvon did i would have been arrested, and charged with a felony.